Do all preachers of evolution falsify their “evidence”, or is it just the really desperate ones?

Question

Why did the journal Nature say that the famous “peppered moth” example , once the “prize horse in our stable” to illustrate evolution by natural selection, must now be thrown out. Science textbooks assert that during the industrial revolution, when tree trunks were darkened by soot, a light-colored variety of the moth become easier for birds to see and were eaten up, while a darker moth flourished. But recently it has been discovered that photographs showing the light moths against the darkened tree trunks were faked. Peppered moths fly about in the upper branches of trees and don’t perch on the trunks at all. Even more is the admission by biologist Theodore Sargent of the University of Massachusetts admitted that he glued dead samples of the moths onto the tree trunks for a NOVA documentary, do most researchers fake evidence to support their religion of evolution?


http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6duQPpGCGUARBhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTFhY2EzcWF2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTMEY29sbwNhYzIEdnRpZANGOTQxXzE2NQRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=12eh8l6r4/EXP=1190892014/**http%3a//www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1543144/posts


http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Theodore+sargent+nova+documentary&ei=UTF-8&Fr=yfp-t-501&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=11

Answer 1

Facts are fine. It's the conclusions jumped to that cause all the problems. Take one alleged fact (about moths adapting), add oodles of imagination (sooty trees), throw in a few billion years (give or take 20 million), and - voila' - moths evolve into another species = evolution!

Nobody with any common sense mistakes adaptation for evolution. Even if the moth story was true and peppered moths had developed a different way to normal due to circumstances, that would not prove the evolution theory. It would only indicate, at most, that within species there is room for variety/adaptation. But as long as the moth remains a moth, there is no proof of evolution. So I think this example is more a case of over-enthusiastic and unwarranted conclusions than desperation or falsification (apart from the naughty people who faked the photos and couldn't even get the first fact right - go to the bottom of the class!)

Answer 2

Cheers for that. It was hilarious. The entire scientific community bar a few individuals has been fooled for years because somebody glued some moths to trees!

Forget the data that backs up the findings, forget the fact that other similar studies have similar results. Forget that this has been shown to happen throughout the world in various different environments to various different stimuli. Forget the fact that this just one piece of evidence for natural selection which is just one small aspect of evolution.

Its all fake, throw it out of the window and worship our creation story. We haven't found any evidence yet but please be patient we have only been at if for a few decades.

Answer 3

First and foremost, evolution doesn't deny the possibility of a creator.

Second, creationism, doesn't automatically deny the possibility of evolution. The two can coexist.

Finally, just because one example of hundreds of examples was falsified and/or found later to be inaccurate doesn't discount all the other examples.

There are zealots on both sides of the fence, and obviously we know which side you stand on in this particular instance of the argument. (You may just be playing "devil's advocate" here for the sake of starting an interesting conversation.) Don't let the zealots confuse you into believing only one side is right. Both can be right, in some form, and both probably are right in some form, but neither is completely right in the strictest interpretation.

Answer 4

The *photograph* is not the evidence; the evidence is in what the photograph presents. It may be true that people have faked a photograph. For example, in the example that you gave it is not necessarily disputed that peppered moths have adapted to their environment through natural selection. Instead, it is a photograph that is disputed. Simply because a singular piece of evidence for something is false does not imply we should throw out an entire philosophy.

Answer 5

the theory of evolution does not need to peppered moth to stand on. There are millions of pieces of data that all support it and no data that refute it. Some of the data is bound to be wrong. But it's not a delicate Jenga puzzle that comes toppling down if one piece is removed. The evidence of evolution is like one of the great pyramids where occasionally, a piece of mortar is scratched at the same time as more, stronger mortar is being put in place.

Answer 6

yes, because we all know dinosaurs were planted by god to fool scientists (sarcasm)

from wiki on peppered moths:

'Creationists such as Jonathan Wells have criticized the use of peppered moth melanism as an example of evolution in action. Wells alleges that peppered moth studies, and in particular Kettlewell's experiments, were erroneous and fraudulent in his book Icons of Evolution. However, although various errors and oversights have been found in early experiments on peppered moth evolution, subsequent experiments and observations have confirmed the phenomenon and its initial explanation.'

looks like you're barking up the wrong tree, but don't worry God made you do it.

Answer 7

Piltdown used to be a fraud, you're rather right. Charles Dawson faked it, as he had faked different "antiquities" adding a few supposedly from Roman occasions which undoubtedly don't have anything to do with evolution. This used to be to not "turn out" evolution, it used to be mostly meant to get him right into a found out society. The arrangement of the Piltdown skull with the jaw used to be considered as a mistake through Marcellin Boule in Paris and Gerritt Miller on the Smithsonian. Even Teilhard de Chardin who have been befriended through Dawson and used to be reward at probably the most digs at Piltdown nearly in no way stated the object after 1920. By 1930 it used to be transparent, even to the British that the object used to be anomalous however that they had different matters to fear approximately. It used to be no longer till the overdue Forties that the technological know-how existed to supply it a moderately definitive experiment for age and this used to be performed nearly as quickly because the chemical procedure used to be released. See "Unravelling Piltdown" through John Evangelist Walsh. The latest declaration that 500 doctoral dissertations had been founded on this is a lie, because there might no longer had been 500 doctoral dissertations at the field of primate fossils in the ones forty one years, and a few of them which have been written used different proof. The Wadjak skulls had been discovered through Dubois whatever like 50 kilometres (30 miles) from the Java fabric. This isn't "rather near" and the tale that they had been discovered nearby is a lie and has been refuted many years in the past. Stop making use of this tale, it manufacturers you as an ignoramus if no longer as a liar. The supply of this lie is understood, he has been uncovered as a chronic liar a number of occasions over the beyond 32 years. The Nebraska enamel used to be of a cavy. These do truthfully resemble a human enamel, furthermore it used to be worn. No scientist ever claimed it used to be undoubtedly human. The closest they got here to that used to be announcing that it maybe human. The declaration that it used to be human used to be made through a journalist and used to be released simplest in "The Illustrated London News" which used to be no longer a systematic newsletter however a wellknown weekly newspaper. The declaration that it used to be claimed through scientists to be human is yet another direct and planned lie which once more used to be refuted years in the past. Stop making use of this tale, it manufacturers you as an ignoramus if no longer as a liar. The factor approximately "Lucy" is that the fossil resolved a problem over whether or not Australopithecus afarensis might stroll upright This had resulted from distinctive approaches of exam of the cranium of A. afarensis of which there have been already a few examples. This used to be founded at the attitude at which the backbone enters the scale down skull. The form of the pelvis AND the scale down leg bones confirmed that during lifestyles, "Lucy" might stroll upright. During the overdue Nineteen Seventies Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research claimed that the British scientist Lord Solly Zuckerman had written that "Lucy", specially, might no longer stroll upright. However by the point "Lucy" used to be discovered, Zuckerman had retired and written his memoirs which incorporated his evaluation of A afarensis skulls. This used to be a couple of years earlier than the fossil used to be discovered. This used to be talked about to Gish on a couple of situations and he admitted he used to be incorrect, however then a couple of months later repeated the tale. In transient, ancient, lengthy refuted lies published on creationist internet websites do not anything to refute human evolution, they simply discredit the individuals who inform them. :

Answer 8

Do all preachers of creationism dismiss the fact that they have absolutely no evidence to support their claims or just the really brainwashed ones?

Who cares about the peppered moth.

There are hundreds of other examples.

Take bio 2 lab at a university and you'll do evolution in drosophila.

Answer 9

why does evolution mean there is no god to you? Isn't it just as plausible that in gen. when they said god made adam from dust it was a non-literal way of describing how humans evolved from the muck and primordial ooze. it is actually the one thing in the bible that does fit the science....

Answer 10

Did you hear about the man who sanded down a skull to make it look 1/2 Ape.LOL
The evolutionists are deseperate for evidence.Also,when they killed the aberiginies for their skulls because they looked 1/2 Ape.So sad